Have a picture of Franke & Heidecke Rolleiflex 3.5E Medium Format Camera?, please send it to us.
| Photograph Quality | 10/10 |
|---|---|
| Features | 8/10 |
| Ease of Use | 8/10 |
| Value for Money | 8/10 |
| Overall rating | 9/10 |
Full review by
Eddie Vaughan
expert review 
on 8th Apr 2008
User Rating : 9
Respect :
0
Good Points: The single most important determinant of camera performance is lens quality. Rolleiflex TLR cameras, which were long the favourite of professional photographers, are renowned for their lens quality, and the 5-element Zeiss Planar or Schneider Kreuznach Xenotar 3.5 lenses that featured on the Rolleiflex 3.5E models rate among the very best Rolleiflex lenses. Although models with the Planar lens fetch higher prices than those fitted with the Xenotar, this is due to the power of the Zeiss name and not to any detectable difference in performance. Both give better edge-to-edge resolution at wide apertures than the legendary Zeiss Tessar lens, which had previously set the Rolleiflex standard for quality, although this advantage disappears when the Tessar is stopped down to f8. Nevertheless, the wide aperture advantage is an important one. Other good points about the Rolleiflex 3.5E include the usual exemplary Rolleiflex construction, the extremely quiet shutter release, the smooth film transport, and (not least important to many collectors and users) the appealing 'retro' look of the camera and the cachet of the Rolleiflex brand.
Bad Points: While not in itself a bad point, this is a fully manual camera that might dissuade someone familiar only with the automatic focus and programmed point-and-shoot capabilities of modern cameras. One must use a hand-held exposure meter (though the E2 variant is pre-wired for a Rollei exposure meter, and in some cases already fitted with one) and also know enough about photography to select the shutter speed and aperture best suited to the intended photograph. This camera, like other medium format cameras, uses 120 roll film. This can be obtained from specialist photographic suppliers easily enough, but is much less widely available than 35mm film. Finally, and probably qualifiying as a bad point, the focusing screens of old Rolleiflex cameras, including this model, are very dim compared with modern focusing screens. This can made focusing difficult, particularly if your eyes are not as sharp as they used to be. Cleaning the screen might help a little, but the only real solution is to replace the old screen with a bright modern screen. Different brands are available for Rolleiflex cameras.
General comments: I paid US$350 for my Rolleiflex 3.5E with a Xenotar lens about five years ago. I use this camera regularly for black and white photography and the results have been exceptionally good. I have replaced the focusing screen with a brighter screen since I bought the camera, but otherwise have experienced no problems. I also have a cheaper Rolleiflex T with the four-element Zeiss Tessar lens, and use this just as regularly. Naturally, I make comparisons. I seldom take photographs at apertures wider than f5.6, so have not noticed any difference in the quality of photographs taken by both cameras. The Xenotar and Tessar are equally sharp and contrasty in the f5.6 - f16 range, though the controls on the Rolleiflex 3.5E are generally easier and quicker to use. Assuming a preference for mid-range apertures and a choice between a Rolleiflex 3.5E and a Rolleiflex T camera of very similar condition, I would therefore rate the cheaper Rolleiflex T as the slightly better buy.
Eddie Vaughan's review and ratings | 516 words
Would you like to see a review that's not being listed?
